+1 This is probably my single biggest takeaway from using Pio (used nodelocking to imitate rec flop raise tendencies).

Once I realized this and changed my cbet strategy I think my results improved dramatically. Against pros I’m more balanced/solid but in general I’m just smashing the cbet button heads up in these types of situations.

I thought it was general poker theory and more for cash than tournament. Which book are you referring to ?

Yep, I learned that from PIO nodelocking too vs live players.

People who say GTO/PIO/Snowie are worthless for live poker or is a waste of time don't even know what these programs are or what they do (i.e. don't know what the hell they are talking about). Nodelocking is an extremely powerful tool.

You do realize when you bet with a dominated hand regardless if the pot gets bigger when we bet is a losing proposition... right?

Figure in your FE for your statement to even have a smidge of truth.

Coming from you, it makes me really think. Thought I was responding to a post where they always Xd their total air and only took a b/b/b line with nutted hands.

Also would definitely participate in a thread where you explain how you dropped out of high school but somehow can maths better than anyone else on this forum.

I’d rather take Janda’s advice than yours.

Sounds like you’re in a bit of pain there bud. Every post is either an insult or crawling up the arse of a reg trying to ingratiate yourself. Maybe this forum isn’t the best place.

Added to ignore list.

I suspect that in theory, checking(and checking down) and folding will result in the most profit, but I think that is based on computer models that assume your opponent never increases his bluff frequency because of your check which, imo, isn't realistic.

The likelihood that he is already ahead of you(and will check down?) is significantly greater than he is behind and will suck out(I think).

1st time for everything. Can anybody that doesn't have me on ignore find fault with what I posted? I really have no problem being wrong. Gonna need to look up what ingratiate... means.

Also, putting people on the ignore list is more annoying than just ignoring their posts. Evidently it is preferred to use technology to perform simple tasks that a normal human brain should be able to do much more efficiently.

Cliffs: If you have 45% equity in the pot with zero food equity, how is it profitable to bet again?

I apologize for such a vague criticism. My problem with your post is that your 25% number seems to have come from nowhere, at least from our perspective. Perhaps you could elaborate on how you got it?

I don't imagine stack depth matters much here. I can't see how a passive player gives us any incentive to check our big hands when most of the EV from checking them at equilibrium comes from picking up bets on future streets that a passive player isn't going to make.

Is this a jab at me? There are many reasons one can fail in the education system that have little to do math ability. I finished calculus two years before I dropped out and took some classes at a community college a little later on, but dropped out of that too.

This isn't a very math focused sub-forum. My math ability and knowledge dwarfs in comparison to many posters' if you consider 2+2 as a whole.

I think that in theory a protection bet is a value bet. We are targeting worse hands. They will rarely call, but we would be happy if they did.

Even though they rarely call, we don't want to slow play because they will beat us when they improve. We only want to slow pay when V can improve but still lose.

Classic example. H: AK. V: 55. Flop AAJ. We bet. If 55 calls, that's good. But we mostly expect it to fold. However, we don't really want to slow play against 55 because when it improves, it beats us.

That's not how multi-street games work.

For example, it's profitable to bet with a 45% equity straight + flush draw on the flop, even if you have 0 fold equity.

The reason why this works isn't something that's explained well in a few sentences or even a few paragraphs, which may be why no one is going into too much detail here.

Hi Matthew, great of you to post here.

The sections in your book on the reasons we bet and strat v/as BB defend have substantially increased my win rate over the past 12 months in both mtt and cash. Thank you.

Yes. Just made it up because it is bigger than zero and less than 100.



Sincere as I can be. Maybe you can help Janda explain how betting with 45% equity with no fold equity is not a losing play. I have a minor in math, but I've forgotten most of it.

Two reasons come to mind.

1. Building a bigger pot now to be able to double barrel scare cards that don't improve your hand on the turn

2. Betting a smaller amount on the flop then your opponent would have bet on the turn if you checked back the flop, thus realizing your equity for a smaller investment then if you didn't bet the flop

Short answer is that there are still streets to play. Your equity otf vs what you realize are rarely going to be the same. You can have 55% of a $10 pot and not ‘get back’ $5.50 because you may be facing bets on turns and rivers against a strong range.

Just guessing here, but I would imagine your equity is only always equal to what your realize otf when you have AKxx on QJTxxx. Your equity is 100%, 100% of the time on 100% of runouts assuming you don’t fold.

Love to hear a snippet from Janda of course.

So I think its more that u want to bet hands that retain equity equity vs a calling range. And also hands that have good properties on later streets: blockers, cooler calling ranges, etc.

In the A3 hand, we have 5 outs vs top pair, and we turn 2 pair on the Ace which is a good barrel card for use where it may look like we have AK and get max value from 78?

In the 54 hand, we turn boat loads of equity on so many turns we don’t even care, just blast it off

As for what Clarke says, "Showdown Value is of the vulnerable sort and so should be protected.”this is pretty much nonsense since we’re not ever going to showdown. Like it just doesn’t matter that we have showdown value when were gonna pump up the pot to a point where a pair of 5s never wins. However I still think its a bet for 2 reasons:
1. To make our opponent fold out their equity share of the pot.
2. Because we have solid equity vs a calling range.

"In my poker study in the past I remember reading that betting for protection is an invalid reason to bet and we should only either be betting for value or betting to get better hands to fold. “
This is also nonsense imo, unless were talking exactly about the river (in which case A+) and see my above points.

actually u can explain it pretty quickly take 1 example:

pot is 100, we have 90 effective behind.
we have AKss on 238ssx. our opponent has the AA.
ok if our opponent goes all in were calling. (we have >33% equity)
ok suppose that if flop goes check/check, and we hit our flush on the turn then we dont win any more money
also if the flop goes check/check and we brick the turn then our opponent will go al in
in this case our best play is to get all the money in on the flop.

Maybe I should have been more clear. Your V has zero FE on flop, turn and river. Please point to where I said otherwise.

#1. With no FE, doesn't matter.

#2. Something to definitely think about for sure. And I mean I will actually think about the concept before posting further.

Certainly if you think you can take the pot away on future streets, great. But that was not my initial point.

Here

Post 16 and beyond

Thanks!

And what happened to Arty McFly?

Equity alone cannot be used to determine the value of a given action.

To illustrate, here's a conundrum. Two players. Player A has a polarized range {AA,QQ} and Player B has a bluffcatching range {KK}. Game is Pot Limit. Action on the river. Board is 22233. Pot is 100. Of course player A and B both have 50% equity in the pot. What is the expected share of the pot for each player assuming optimal play? Hint: it's not 50-50, and position is irrelevant.

This example may illustrate the value of constructing a balanced turn range which can river the nuts on many different runouts. If the 45% equity of our hand represents a draw to the nuts (or at least a draw to a hand that dominates our opponents range) then we can extract additional value from this hand on the river by betting/raising a polarized range consisting of a balanced mixture of nuts and air. Considering turn play in the previous example, player A will tend to want to increase the pot size going into the river even though he has only 50% equity on this 2223 board. Same thing goes in general for polarized ranges that will consist largely of made hands and missed draws on the river.

The key word in Janda’s post was flop. There was no mention of not having FE later in the hand.

I'm not one to be like "hey buy my stuff so you can learn this poker info" but by the same token I don't really want to try to condense something I've written 20 pages on (and re-written probably 5 times) and had it edited by Mason and David probably 5+ times. I'd rather not produce a ****ty write-up of the concept when I feel we've already produced a good one (this would be part of Applications that I think aged really well, and I imagine I reference it a few times in the new book).

My books talk about how you can work backwards from the river with perfectly polarized ranges and bluff more on the flop than the river. It's that concept for why you don't need a ton of equity to bet on the flop and still force your opponent to fold (or make a -EV call in the case they refuse to fold).

"Reasons we bet" was probably the biggest "ah-hah" moment for me despite how simple/obvious it seems once it's written out. Glad you enjoyed it.

Imagine we are 1000 big blinds deep and the pot is 5BB on the flop. If I bet I know you'll call and never fold. My range has 49% equity, but my range is 49% pure nuts and 51% pure air (so my range is perfectly polarized).

If I bet this flop you are going to get #rekt if you start calling there. Does not matter you have more equity than me. I have just barely less equity than you, and I have perfect information (I know when I'll win at showdown and know when I'll lose, since I have the polarized range and you're bluff catching).

That is the ****ty write up I just 3 minutes ago I wrote I wouldn't do for a complex concept. You can prove what I wrote above with math, but hopefully you can see how you aren't going to win "bluff catching" in a multi-street game with 51% equity. The more streets left to act and the deeper the stack depth, the more screwed you are by trying to call with your 51% equity range.

It appears from the few posts of yours I have read you are focused too much on the absolute amount of equity a range has rather than how that equity is distributed among your range (i.e. polarized range with 40% equity is much stronger than bluff catching range of 40% equity).